Category: Access to Care

As House Republicans regain momentum in their quest to replace Obamacare, GOP moderates have done something unexpected: they’ve focused not broadly on covering the uninsured, but specifically on protecting those with pre-existing conditions. There’s a reason for that, and it has to do with wildly exaggerated claims that Democrats made when they were passing the law in 2009 and 2010.

The vast majority of Americans who are uninsured aren’t without coverage because of a health problem. They’re uninsured because of an economic problem: the problem that American health care costs too much, especially for lower-middle-income Americans who earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

As Members of Congress debate repealing and replacing Obamacare, they should learn from the failures of that law in crafting a better set of health care policies. One important step in that crafting is the establishment of a fairer and more reasonable set of rules for limiting health plans’ application of pre-existing condition exclusions. Policymakers should link the ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions to a requirement of continuous coverage. Setting the right rules around the prohibition on plans applying pre-existing condition exclusions will not only stabilize insurance markets, but also provide a firmer foundation for future reforms of other aspects of health care policy.

Many people are going without insurance under ObamaCare because they cannot afford the law’s expensive plans or aren’t aware of their options. Congress can help these Americans and many others get insurance by enrolling them in no-premium, no-obligation plans from which they could withdraw if they wanted to. Opponents will argue that automatic enrollment infringes on personal liberty. But people placed into such coverage would be free to opt out or to select an option that better suits their needs. Few people opt out of employer pensions when they are placed into them automatically, and no-premium insurance would impose no cost on the enrollees.

You cannot do health care reform if it frightens patients who believe they will lose access to the care they are already receiving. This is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates showing tens of millions of people losing insurance as a result of what Speaker Paul Ryan and company were trying to do was so devastating. It’s that kind of reality that killed Obamacare after it became law. Whatever Congress does must ensure stability and continuity of care, especially among the most vulnerable populations during the transition period between what we have now and what comes next. Congress’ first concern when it comes to health care reform should be about producing better health outcomes.

The most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are the most expensive. Universal coverage is a top priority not only for Democrats but also for President Trump. Both Republicans and Democrats want to preserve many costly coverage features of the ACA, including those that prevent insurers from precluding people with preexisting conditions and those that eliminate lifetime or annual coverage limits. The challenge is how to preserve these features and make insurance affordable.

One of the more interesting television commercials I see is an ad sponsored by Cancer Treatment Centers of America. The message: if you have cancer, we want you.

Welcome to a small glimpse of how the market for health care might be different.

If we had a genuinely free market for health care, ads like this would not be rare and unusual. There would be centers of excellence for heart disease and diabetes and dozens of other afflictions. Through television, radio, the Internet and other means, these centers would be seeking out people with problems and offering to solve them – just like in other markets.

A second major health-insurer has decided to quit selling individual policies in Iowa, raising fears that tens of thousands of Iowans will have no options for coverage next year.

Aetna informed Iowa regulators Thursday that it had decided to stop selling such policies, which cover people who lack access to employer-provided coverage or government plans. The move would affect 36,205 customers, the company told regulators.

Aetna’s move takes effect in January. It came three days after Iowa’s dominant health-insurer, Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield, announced that it would no longer sell individual health-insurance policies in Iowa.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has substantially increased the number of Americans with public and private health insurance coverage. The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the ACA has resulted in 20 million additional nonelderly adults gaining coverage between the law’s enactment and February 2016. This estimate is likely overstated. Government surveys’ estimates of the number of people who gained coverage between December 2013 and December 2015 vary by 20 percent. Moreover, while the ASPE estimates that the ACA increased the number of young adult dependents with insurance coverage between 2010 and 2013 by 2.3 million, data from government surveys indicate that 1.2 million fewer dependent children had private coverage in 2013 than in 2010, offsetting half the gain in coverage among older dependents. Coverage gains have nonetheless been significant, with most of the increase coming from enrollment surges in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance programs. But a substantial proportion of those who have enrolled in these public programs since 2014 met eligibility standards that predated the ACA. This increase in public coverage may have crowded out private coverage, although further study is needed to determine the existence and magnitude of this effect.

As Congress and the Trump administration move forward with plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they are looking for proven state-led reforms that maintain access for those with pre-existing conditions in the current exchange market while also lowering premiums for everyone buying insurance in the individual market.

Maine faced similar challenges in 2011 as it sought to unwind failed experiments that pushed its market into a long-term death spiral. But by creating an invisible high-risk pool and relaxing its premium rating bands, Maine policymakers were able to cut premiums in half while still guaranteeing those with pre-existing conditions access to plans.

As a result of these changes, individuals in their early 20s were able to see premium savings of nearly $5,000 per year, while individuals in their 60s saw savings of more than $7,000.

As Republicans in Congress look to repeal and replace the ACA, they’re considering a return to high-risk pools like one in Wisconsin, which some considered a national model. The “Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan” — which ran from 1979 to 2014, when the federal health law’s exchanges started — was funded through premiums, insurance company assessments and reduced payments to providers. “Pooling the high-risk individuals together and managing their needs separately was a huge factor in the state’s success in offering a competitive insurance market,” J.P. Wieske, the state’s deputy insurance commissioner, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee this month.